Friday, December 26, 2008

So, while I might support Hudud in principle, I do not support it as the law of the land. And I do not support it because I can’t support what two-thirds of Parliament does not support.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Christmas is upon us, yet again. Another Christmas, another year gone, another year nearer to our graves. Tomorrow is Boxing Day, also remembered as Tsunami Day, the day when people were drowned in their sleep and swept out to sea into their watery graves.

How quickly joy turns to sorrow. One day we are elated with festivity and drowning in food and wine. The next we are sedated with reality and drowning in the Indian Ocean. I am now in Penang. I arrived yesterday with an entourage of six families, about 25 souls or so in all. I am now in the land where it all happened almost a memory ago.

The Boxing Day Tsunami, some say, is God’s punishment. It is God punishing mankind for the wrongs it has done. If that was really what God intended then God did not do a good job. Those who deserve punishment certainly did not get punished. Those who were punished were not deserving of that fate. Are we talking about my God, one of compassion and justice, or are we talking about your God, one with a sick sense of humour and misguided sense of justice?

To you your God and to me mine, the religionists say. But then are we not all God’s children and the creation of that same, one God? How can you, therefore, have your God and me, mine? Your God and mine are one and the same. To believe we have separate Gods means we believe there is more than one God. And the doctrine of most religions says there is but one God, in particular that of the Abrahamic faiths.

And are we so different? Did not Muhammad learn from the Christians and much of Islam ‘adopted’ from Christianity? Does not the Ka’bah also appear in the same name and form in the land of the Zoroastrians in the far reaches of Persia? Did not Jesus disappear from the ages of 12 to 30 when he sought tuition from Buddhists, as many now believe? Did not John the Baptist practice what was practiced by the Hindus in India of his time? But what can we really believe? Do we really know what was fact and fiction thousands of years ago? What we do know is what we have been told to believe. And what we are told to believe is what they want us to believe. And what they want us to believe is what suits the political agenda of those who walk in the corridors of power.

John roamed the land with just the clothes on his back to preach the word of God. And he brought no rations save those he accepted as alms along the way. Was John a Jew, Christian or Buddhist? We believe what we want to believe as long as it suits those who walk in the corridors of power. And to believe otherwise will not incur the wrath of God but the wrath of those who need us to believe what we are told to believe for purposes of political expediency.

Such is religion. And such is politics. And religion is not about God. It is about politics. And Cain killed Abel not for God but for politics. The good died that day, thousands of years ago. And we are descendants of the bad that lived, not the good that died.

So, can mankind be good when we are children of bad? How can the fruit of a poisonous tree be nothing but poisonous? If Cain had survived and society had convicted Abel and sentenced him to death for attempted murder, then we would probably be good because then we would be children of Cain, not Abel.

But would children of good also be good? And would children of bad also be bad? Can those whose mothers and fathers who are both nuclear scientists be equally brilliant? Or is there no possibility the son could be born mentally retarded? How many children of Umno diehards join the opposition, to be cursed and disowned by their fathers? And can there not be two brothers on opposite sides of the political fence? Shahrir and Khalid, the two sons of Samad, are testimony that there can. But which of Samad’s sons is Cain and which is Abel? It all depends on whether you walk in the corridors of power. Cain can be Abel and Abel, Cain, if he you judge walks with you and not against you.

Hudud is the current controversy, the latest Tsunami sweeping this land. But what is the issue? Is it about religion or it is merely politics? The hand is quicker than the eye. And what we see is what our brain tells us to see. We see what the hand waves in front of us. Magic is not magic. Magic is sleight of hand.

And the politicians are playing silap mata. It is a cheap show to indulge our fantasies. Is it not fantasy that Hudud will be implemented in Malaysia? How can the minority move the majority? The Federal Constitution does not provide for it. Hudud is not about religion. It is about the law of the land. Religion may be a state matter. But Hudud is not about religion. It is about the law of the land. And the states do not have authority over the laws of the land. Hudud can only become law when Parliament says so. And you need 66.666% of Parliament to say so. PAS owns only 23 seats. And 23 seats in Parliament is not 66.666% of 222. So Hudud can never be the law of the land.

The non-Muslim coalition partners of Barisan Nasional oppose Hudud. This, they have said so. Umno from Kelantan supports Hudud. This, they have said so. The non-Muslim partners of the opposition coalition oppose Hudud. This, they have said so. PAS, the propagator of Hudud, is split on the issue. This may have a bearing on the Kuala Terengganu by-election on 17 January 2009.

In the meantime the people are confused. Who supports what and who opposes? It is no longer that easy to tell. But it is meant that way. This is what politics is all about. And Hudud is about politics, not about religion. Politics is about exploitation and deception. Politics, not prostitution, is the oldest profession in the world. But, while prostitutes are not politicians, politicians are certainly prostitutes. And they will prostitute themselves if need be. And most times it needs be that they prostitute themselves.

PAS wants to secure the Malay votes in Kuala Terengganu. Umno wants to swing the Chinese votes. So, with the by-election looming over the horizon, Hudud is played to the hilt. Islam is the issue of the day. Hudud is the bad boy of Islam. And there are no sacred cows in politics. All is fair in love and war. So let us play up the Hudud issue for the benefit of winning votes.

A critical analysis of Hudud could lay the matter to rest. Those opposed could become converted if the real issue is explained. But then this will end the confusion. And the objective is not to end the confusion. The game plan is exploitation and deception. That is how ‘good’ politics is played. And there is only one type of politics, the type that wins.

I do not want to explain Hudud. I am not even a Hudud apologist. I can do that if you want me to. It is so crystal clear and extremely simple that it makes me laugh. How can Hudud be an issue? Hudud can be good and can be bad depending on application. So can the Internal Security Act if you really want to get analytical. Hudud is not about punishment. It is about looking into circumstances. Hudud explores what went wrong and how to put it right. It is not about imposing on society and causing tears to be shed.

Thieves must not be automatically punished under Hudud. The circumstances need to first be explored. Under common law thieves must not escape punishment. The circumstances do not matter. If a thief is a thief because of circumstances then the thief is not a thief and society must instead be punished, as far as Hudud is concerned. Society will be ordered to adopt the thief. The thief will become the ward of the state. And the thief can now leave his life and crime and enter into a life of adoption.

Such is the beauty of Hudud. A thief is not a thief. A thief becomes our adopted child. And if, again, he needs to steal because we have failed him, then we receive punishment instead. The thief loses no limb. But do people understand this? They do not because they are meant to not understand. This is about politics. And politicians are prostitutes. They exploit us and deceive us. And that is a mark of a good politician.

Murder is murder. Death is punished by death. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But that is common law. That is not Hudud. In Hudud the question would be: why did you kill? Circumstantial evidence is not allowed under Hudud. Under common law you hang because of the smoking gun. Never mind they can’t prove that you killed. As long as the gun is yours you will die even if you did not pull the trigger. And did not Mokhtar Hashim get sentenced to death because of the smoking gun?

Even if you confess to murder you still do not die. The victim's family would first be asked whether they want you dead. Taking your life will not bring back the deceased. So do we want a life for a life? Two lives gone serves no purpose. The deceased's family’s welfare for the rest of its natural days takes precedence over punishment. Dead men do not put food on the table. Would another life lost, notwithstanding it is the life of a murderer, solve the economic problems of the deceased's family?

So you can ‘buy’ your life by supporting the family. It may be costly but that is the price of life. But what if you are destitute yourself? How to support your victim’s family when you can’t even support yourself? Many pay tithe or zakat. Zakat must be paid, come hell or high water. You can choose how to pay as long as it assists society. And if your millions can be spent for the benefit of mankind then you have fulfilled your duty to God and society. So a philanthropist can help 'buy back' your life for the good of the deceased's family.

So there are ways. Hudud can be humane if you want it to be. But has this been explained? Are the people aware that Hudud can improve society where common law has failed? But who cares? Who cares that Hudud can be better than what we have now? Hudud is not about religion. It is about politics. And politics is about exploitation and deception. And that is because politicians are prostitutes. And Hudud has been prostituted for the benefit of politics. That is what Hudud is all about, political prostitution.

But I too do not support the implementation of Hudud. I support Hudud in that it can be better than what we have if properly implemented. But what is properly implemented nowadays? Even the Internal Security Act has been abused. The Internal Security Act was good in 1960. One generation later and it has become a tool to stifle dissent and freedom.

So, while I might support Hudud in principle, I do not support it as the law of the land. And I do not support it because I can’t support what two-thirds of Parliament does not support. This is not about religion. It is about democracy. Even if two-thirds of Parliament supports it I still will not support it. How can 148 members of Parliament decide on behalf of 26 million Malaysians? Never mind some people gave them their two-thirds majority in Parliament. It was only four million people that did. 22 million other Malaysians did not.

Run a referendum. 10 million Malaysians are minors. 16 million Malaysians are of voting age. Get the 16 million Malaysians to decide. And let that referendum of 75% tell us what they want. And if 12 million Malaysians, representing 75% of eligible voters, vote in favour of Hudud, then let this be the law of the land. If not, forever hold your tongue and let the matter be given a decent burial.

I have just about had it with political prostitutes. It has come to a point I feel like campaigning for Umno in the Kuala Terengganu by-election just to send a message to PAS that they can’t keep playing this exploitation and deception game of political prostitution. Do they think I have my brains in my ass? Just because they do does not mean I do too.

Those who both support and oppose Hudud do not know one bit what Hudud is. Many years ago I wrote a ‘thesis’ on the matter, which was published in Harakah, the official party organ of PAS. No, I am no lawyer. I am not even a religious scholar. I just have a brain; a brain God gave me. And God gave us brains so that we can use it to think. But I wonder why others do not also use their brains that God gave them to think.

No, Hudud is not evil. Hudud is better than what we have now. But it can be worse if we want to make it so. And chances are the evil in man will make it worse. That is what makes the matter dicey.

Nevertheless, the issue is not whether Hudud is better or worse. It is about whether the majority of the people want it as the law of the land. That is what matters. And we do not care what 23 PAS Members of Parliament want. We do not even care what 148 Members of Parliament want, even if they represent two-thirds of Parliament. We care what 75% of 16 million Malaysians want. If 12 million Malaysians shout, “Let’s implement Hudud”, then let that happen. If not, buzz off and get out of my face before I really lose my temper, you political prostitutes.

Oh yes, and Merry Christmas everyone. Hope you are in the same mood as I am today. I want to kick ass. Don’t know what you want to do though.